alert_list

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the '[READ]' prefix merely restates that. The genuinely additive detail is the disclosure that results report 'returned', 'limit', and 'truncated' so a capped read is visible — useful output-behavior context — but nothing about authorization, ordering, or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the purpose and return fields, then a compact per-argument breakdown. Every line carries information; the only near-redundancy is restating the default of 500 that the schema already declares.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields and explains the truncation reporting, which is enough for a simple read-only list tool. It stops short of explaining pagination strategy (how to get past a truncated result) or ordering.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it largely does: severity is a single-severity filter with an example (CRITICAL), limit defaults to 500 and drives the truncation flag, target names a Prism Central config entry. The only gap is that valid severity values are never enumerated and the schema has no enum to fall back on.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('List alerts') and enumerates the entity's key fields (extId, title, severity, impact, ack/resolved, affected entity), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, differentiate itself from adjacent list siblings such as event_list or audit_list, which an agent might confuse it with.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Per-argument guidance is decent ('omit for all severities', 'omit for the default' target), implying usage context. But there is no explicit statement of when to reach for alert_list versus analyze_alert, alert_triage_rca, or the other *_list tools, so tool selection is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.